What is Democracy

[Berzerker]

Spiffor -

But what happens if you are in a purist State like Floyd's, where every tax is considered theft?

Floyd doesn't believe that, he accepts user fees as legitimate as well as lotteries and I imagine a few other taxes.

I happen to want to contribute to society (yes, even welfare) through taxes. Whenever I get my wage leaflet, I can only feel proud at the sight of the money I poured into the medication of the sick, the retirement of the elderly, the education of the young etc. Am I mad?

I thought your belief system couldn't be imposed on others, now you want it imposed? Did you ask the majority if this was moral? There's all sort of good things I can do with money if only I can steal enough legally, that doesn't make my stealing moral.

I have no problem with you thinking your system is superior. I have a problem with you thinking you Berzerker are the highest form of morality on Earth, whose decisions are the wisest and truest morals.

But you think your system is morally superior to mine, so what's wrong with me thinking my system is morally superior to yours? It's called hypocrisy, Spiffor. You make snide comments about people doing what you're doing...

Of course I can. That's why I don't want to live by the principles you dictate to me.

But you said your morality is based on what the majority thinks, that isn't thinking for yourself, it's letting others think for you. The principle I want for us all is live and let live... If you find that unacceptable, will you leave those of us who like it out of your system where your "principles" are dictated to us?

Back to the political system then, since it is a common decision after all. WHo decides the punishment?

We do through representative government.

Who decides whether the slaver should be mauled, quartered, simply killed with a firearm, whipped, imprisoned, fined, or whatever? Who decides that? Is the punishment for this offense, like all the specifics of public decisions encompassed in the golden rule?

See above.

Which is?

In short, the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action.

You'll always find loonies who wish to be enslaved, raped, abducted or whatever. Heck, there has even been one loonie who wanted to be eaten alive (Germany last year). Does this mean it is OK to eat other people?

You missed what I said, human rights derive from "universal" desires. If someone wants to be enslaved, they were free to make the choice to be enslaved and that really isn't slavery. That is not the slavery we're talking about and you know it. Now, if someone wants to be eaten, so be it, but that doesn't create a right to eat people who don't want to be eaten. Now, can you prove this person wanted to be eaten or is that a bogus news story? I heard about it at the time but I didn't accept it as truthful.

Good. Then, I hope you'll found a sort of Sealand with Libertarian friends then, and see ow it works out without forcing us to live under such rule.

This country was set up with rules which most libertarians can accept aside from a few notable exceptions which have largely been corrected via the amendment process. I'm assuming you don't agree with everything your government is doing so why do you advise us to move away from our homes when you don't move yourself? Yes Spiffor, telling people to love it or leave it is more hypocrisy and wouldn't convince the victims of Mafia extortion that they should accept the immorality they see as moral or move away.

Of course not, but that would be an emotional statement.

So you wouldn't like democracy if the majority was out to do you harm. Thanks, that's all I wanted to see. But why wouldn't it be a rational statement as well? Seems to me a system that forced you into slavery would be immoral based on logic as well as emotion... And you loathe my morals and ideology? Strange, you have alot of atrocities committed under majority rule to justify before passing judgement on my beliefs...

[Berzerker]

But what if you choose to be enslaved? Is that allowed? Why or why not? Aren't you choosing where you work.

Why is it slavery if you choose to be "enslaved"? Are we talking about the same thing here? Slavery is a practice where people are abducted against their will and enslaved, not people who allegedly "want" to be enslaved.

Spiffor is making good sense on this thread. Saying society should be based on the golden rule is all good and well until someone with some power decides they don't want to be subject to it and has no problem with being a hypocrite.

And stopping them is justified, but what happens when it's the majority committing the atrocities? Watch it Spiffor, you're getting the endorsement of someone studying to be a lyer.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
A constitutional republic based on libertarian principles, that's about as moral as any government can get.

Sorry, that's still not going to work. First of all, the contents of said constitution will still be decided by people, a committee perhaps. Now, how would the committee decide when a conflict arises? Catch-22, as you so fond of saying.

Secondly, there is no inherent advantage of a republic over a democracy. Even in the supreme court of the land or the legislature, it is still the rule of the majority.

I don't see how your suggestion is better.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why is it slavery if you choose to be "enslaved"? Are we talking about the same thing here? Slavery is a practice where people are abducted against their will and enslaved, not people who allegedly "want" to be enslaved.

Have you never heard of the phrase 'selling yourself into slavery'? It isn't simply abducted against your will. Slavery means you are owned entirely by another person.

And stopping them is justified, but what happens when it's the majority committing the atrocities?

Why is stopping them justified? Because you don't like it? I guess if you got the power then you can say it is justifed.

But what if you don't have that power? What if you can't stop them? Then what?

And what about those people who think that they SHOULD be taxed? So in calling for taxes they are wishing others be treated as they themselves want to be treated. Therefore they aren't hypocrits and are not violating the golden rule. Does that mean they are right to you? What if these people who wouldn't mind being taxed are in the majority? By calling for taxes they aren't violating the golden rule.

Watch it Spiffor, you're getting the endorsement of someone studying to be a lyer.

Better than someone who has no concept of the law or its origins .

[Berzerker]

UR -

Sorry, that's still not going to work. First of all, the contents of said constitution will still be decided by people, a committee perhaps. Now, how would the committee decide when a conflict arises? Catch-22, as you so fond of saying.

I think I said it once, hardly a fondness but I did say a constitution based on libertarian principles, not majority rule. As for conflicts, that's life...is any system free of conflicts?

Secondly, there is no inherent advantage of a republic over a democracy. Even in the supreme court of the land or the legislature, it is still the rule of the majority.

There is when the republic has a constitution based on libertarian principles. If your point is constitutions can be ignored or subverted, sure, that's why we have our current system. But that would no longer be a constitutional republic based on libertarian principles, it might be a "democracy".

I don't see how your suggestion is better.

I've pointed out the flaw with democracy, point out the flaw with my suggestion.

Imran -

Have you never heard of the phrase 'selling yourself into slavery'? It isn't simply abducted against your will. Slavery means you are owned entirely by another person.

That's a euphemism, try using the actual definition of slavery. The notion one can "choose" to be a slave is illogical and certainly not what we've been talking about.

Why is stopping them justified? Because you don't like it? I guess if you got the power then you can say it is justifed.

You don't think stopping a murderer is justified? Yes, I don't like it and would stop it if I could. And if I got the power, I'd still say stopping a murderer was justified. What's your point?

But what if you don't have that power? What if you can't stop them? Then what?

Then I can't stop them.

And what about those people who think that they SHOULD be taxed?

I'd tell them what I tell rich Democrats who complain about the tax cuts under Bush, they can give more to the government if they want.

So in calling for taxes they are wishing others be treated as they themselves want to be treated.

No they aren't, they are asking others be taxed at rates they want, not the rates the others want. If the others demanded a %99 rate on them they'd stop viewing it as a matter of the Golden Rule (if they do now).

What if these people who wouldn't mind being taxed are in the majority? By calling for taxes they aren't violating the golden rule.

Yes they are, consider this analogy, a guy rapes a beautiful woman based on the notion he'd want her to rape him. Sorry fella, if you want to rape someone you don't get to decide who rapes you just as the beautiful woman had no choice who raped her. Besides, I'm sure Jesus gave people a little more credit in the intellectual honesty department when he offered up the Golden Rule and wasn't talking to a bunch of lawyers intent on figuring out loopholes in what he said.

Telling people they should be forced to pay a tax because you are "willing" to pay the tax means you want to be taxed in return, not at the rate you want, but the rate they want. Throw in "progressive" taxation and you have liberals demanding some people pay more and some pay less...all dictated by the liberals, not the people they are forcing to pay the tax.

Better than someone who has no concept of the law or its origins .

Didn't you claim the Nazis never stole from German Jews because what they did was legal? Haven't you argued that stealing and murder didn't occur before government came along with laws to invent these crimes?

DAMN! Nen just went on the 60 day DL and I have him on something like 8 teams.

[kolpo]

"A constitutional republic based on libertarian principles, that's about as moral as any government can get. "

But the chance for that to be created are extremely slim because there is an extreme contradiction in it:

In order to make such dramatical changes do you need A LOT of power, you then need an extreme powerfull despot or an extreme powerfull democratic elected leader who uses that power to make a libertarian state and then end his own power.

It is actually in that way(not in other ways) similar to communism: you need a TON of power to create that type of state, either a libertarian state or a communistic state can't be created without a ton of power. Just to end the democratic principle do you need more power then any US president ever had.

Now even imagine if you actually can create such a state then shall that state still exists no longer then the majority supports it. Secret police, bans on free expression or weapon possesion are all very anti-libertarian so if the majority revolts againsts your libertarian system is there nothing the system itself can do againsts that.

Quite every state that does not use tools to suppress the majority(Secret police, bans on free expression and free organization) is eventually lead by that majority. Even most despots have to consider the will of the majority somewhat(that is why they have propaganda after all). No single constitution, no single system can survive a succesfull revolt by the majority. That type of revolt can only be stopped by very anti-libertarian means.

Give me a realistic way a libertarian state can be create and how it can survive moments where the majority is againsts that type of state without using anti-libertarian means like a big police force, bans on weapon ownership or bans on free organization.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Floyd doesn't believe that, he accepts user fees as legitimate as well as lotteries and I imagine a few other taxes.

Yes, and there are on a voluntary basis. I know plenty of people who'll want to keep getting protected by the police, but will avoid paying a dime for it if possible. Should they be on their own when mugged, then?
Or does it mean the poor (who can't pay police fees) should be not protected by the police, and be open to robbing and theft, thus impeding on their freedom not to be stolen, or not to be hit?

I thought your belief system couldn't be imposed on others, now you want it imposed?

Huh? I was only opposing your claim that nobody enjoys seeing his money go to the State. Since your system seems to require a unanimity of desires, I just showed you my desires aren't the same as yours.

Did you ask the majority if this was moral?

Why should you care about the majority? If one person disagrees, then doing something that he disagrees with is impeding on his freedom.

But you think your system is morally superior to mine, so what's wrong with me thinking my system is morally superior to yours?

Again, there is nothing wrong in believing your system is superior to the others. There is something really laughable, however, in your belief that you Berzerker (not liberarianism, I am talking about yourself) is the one who is the most fit to decide what is perfectly moral or not. I'm glad to hear God is on this board

But you said your morality is based on what the majority thinks, that isn't thinking for yourself, it's letting others think for you.

Not my morality. You are the only one talking about morality. My political system is based on democracy. Yes, that little thing that is about making political decisions wherever common action is called for. This is what this thread is about: democracy as a tool of political action.
This issue has been avoided by your posts altogether until this:

We do through representative government.

Finally I get the answer to the question that is of interest in this thread
So, you prefer representative government, over one-person despotism. Cool. Now, how are decisions taken? Are they taken at majority rule, or at unanimity? Say, the majority of the government says your slaver neighbour deserves to be enslaved in turn, but a minority says he should remain free, but fined. What is the final decision?

The principle I want for us all is live and let live... If you find that unacceptable, will you leave those of us who like it out of your system where your "principles" are dictated to us?

I would maybe even lend you money for you to buy a platform petrol and live your happy dream somewhere on the sea

You missed what I said, human rights derive from "universal" desires. If someone wants to be enslaved, they were free to make the choice to be enslaved and that really isn't slavery. That is not the slavery we're talking about and you know it. Now, if someone wants to be eaten, so be it, but that doesn't create a right to eat people who don't want to be eaten.

I can only imagine a renowned cannibal: "Yes your honor. He wanted to be eaten, I swear!"
You are either saying the rights vary from person to person, or the rights are universal, and forced upon those who don't like it. For example, since "nobody wants to be killed", should suicide be illegal? After all, the "right to life" (which is one of your natural rights IIUC) is the main reason why thousands of aged people can't enjoy a euthanasia.

Now, can you prove this person wanted to be eaten or is that a bogus news story? I heard about it at the time but I didn't accept it as truthful.

I wasn't there, but the court considered there was enough evidence of the man wanting to be eaten link.

This country was set up with rules which most libertarians can accept aside from a few notable exceptions which have largely been corrected via the amendment process. I'm assuming you don't agree with everything your government is doing so why do you advise us to move away from our homes when you don't move yourself? Yes Spiffor, telling people to love it or leave it is more hypocrisy and wouldn't convince the victims of Mafia extortion that they should accept the immorality they see as moral or move away.

That's because I believe in democracy as a way to achieve my political aims, and I don't hold democracy for corrupt. I understood you considered your (democratic) country to be morally bankrupt, so I didn't imagine you could hope to change the system from within. If you think you can change the system from within, then go on and continue to live in the US.

So you wouldn't like democracy if the majority was out to do you harm. Thanks, that's all I wanted to see. But why wouldn't it be a rational statement as well? Seems to me a system that forced you into slavery would be immoral based on logic as well as emotion... And you loathe my morals and ideology? Strange, you have alot of atrocities committed under majority rule to justify before passing judgement on my beliefs...

1. I exaggerated my loathing of your belief only to show you not everyone agrees with you, people can even be strongly against what you propose. Since you belong to a fringe group that is so far not dangerous at all for our stable systems, I am not as emotional as I intended to look.
2. There are an infinity of atrocities committed under "rule" at all, whether majority, minority, monopersonal, sepotic etc. rule.
I am defending democracy not like some sort of epitome of what is good and great, but as the best political system that has been devised so far. You may be surprised, but every modern democracy lays out a set of unchangeable freedoms just like your constitution does (although the freedoms aren't entirely identical). But the question I continue to ask is who decided these laws. Who decided to protect these freedoms? Who manages the political matters in the limitations that have been drawn in the political system itself?

This is the question asked in this thread. This thread is not about the merits and flaws of a libertarian morality, it is about the political process: how to take decisions that, in their nature, will affect other people? Who takes these decisions?

You were talking about a representative government. Unless it votes at the unanimity rule, this looks frighteningly similar to any modern-day democracy, where a constitution lays out the rights on which the State cannot impede, and where the majority takes decisions in that frame.

[Imran Siddiqui]

try using the actual definition of slavery

I am:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slavery

1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.
2.
a. The practice of owning slaves.
b. A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.
3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.
4. A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery.

Looking at the definition, you can choose to be a slave. A slave is simply one bound to someone else.

You don't think stopping a murderer is justified?

It depends. Is the 'murder' of some bloodthirsty dictator? That's my point, justification depends on who's in charge and what rules are in place.

No they aren't, they are asking others be taxed at rates they want, not the rates the others want. If the others demanded a %99 rate on them they'd stop viewing it as a matter of the Golden Rule (if they do now).

Isn't the Golden Rule "do unto others as you would want them to do unto you"? What if these people want to tax people at a rate which they would want to be taxed at as well? If your objection is if they set the rate for others, others should set the rate for them, then that is what democracy is about, isn't it? They believe that they should be taxed as well as others and will accept that which those they want to tax will place upon them. That seems to satisfy the Golden Rule and I don't see any way it doesn't.

Your rape analogy is flawed because the rapist would have to be sibject to rape by another man. It isn't do until others as you would want that person to do unto you. It applies to the entire world.

Didn't you claim the Nazis never stole from German Jews because what they did was legal? Haven't you argued that stealing and murder didn't occur before government came along with laws to invent these crimes?

Yes, and yes. Anyone who knows the law knows that both are true.... except I didn't argue about stealing. Stealing is simply taking something without permission. Murder is unlawful killing, ie, requires a law.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


No. Democracy requires that there is at least ONE unanimous vote, by which everyone agrees to follow the will of the majority. However, no one would do it unless given some promise as to what can never be done by the majority.

NO it does not.

Government is never created unanimously-one group with the ability to exert power enforces it on everyone else. The consitution of the US was not passed unanimously-once it was passed, it became the law.

The mayority, simply by being the mayority, can exert its power over anyone else. Is this right? The question is irrelevant, since governing is not about morality, but about stability and creating a set of rules and boundary-taming chaos. So whether it is an oligarchy, tyranny or democracy, whomever has the power enforces and creates the government. And we move on from there.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I think I said it once, hardly a fondness but I did say a constitution based on libertarian principles, not majority rule. As for conflicts, that's life...is any system free of conflicts?

The problems are:

1. Why are Libertarian principles more moral than, say, one that denys property ownership is a right?

2. Any principles are open to interpretation. When there's interpretation you will need a concensus - thus, we are back to square one.

Originally posted by Berzerker
There is when the republic has a constitution based on libertarian principles. If your point is constitutions can be ignored or subverted, sure, that's why we have our current system. But that would no longer be a constitutional republic based on libertarian principles, it might be a "democracy".

My point was, at almost any point, majority rule is an inevitable fact. The supreme court thing was just an example.

Originally posted by Berzerker
I've pointed out the flaw with democracy, point out the flaw with my suggestion.

That's easy. Libertarian principles are quite immoral.

[Whaleboy]

1. Why are Libertarian principles more moral than, say, one that denys property ownership is a right?

For me, the issue isn't one of morality, it is of logical consistency, and libertarian principles are more consistent than communism in my opinion.

2. Any principles are open to interpretation. When there's interpretation you will need a concensus - thus, we are back to square one.

I disagree. Where things are open to interpretation, all you need is a means of preventing people from forcing their arbitrary interpretations upon each other, a consensus is probably the worse thing that could happen in that case. I of course, differentiate between civil and political rights.

That's easy. Libertarian principles are quite immoral.

Firstly, I do not believe democracy to be necessarily libertarian, I am not a democracy advocate. And the proper term would be amoral, since libertarianism seems to imply room for individual morality, in an emotive or prescriptive sense.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Berzerker
And how is this relevant? It is relevant to your position since you derive your morality from the majority which has committed such atrocities. C'mon Spiffor, would you really have concluded slavery was moral if you lived in a country where the majority said it was moral? Of course not, so why claim your morality is based on what the majority thinks?

I never claimed my morality came from what most people think. Actually, I have never talked about "morality" in this thread except when replying to you. The topic of interest here is not morality, it is the political system. I base my political system (where the decisions are taken, by whom, with what rpocesses) on majority rule. My own morality is something I built with the prejudices ingrained since my birth, plus my own reflexions - it has nothing to do with the political system.

it means if you introduce other factors into situations, what we want and don't want can change.

And so it means the golden rule cannot be applied universally.

Besides, if I understand the Golden Rule, it is "don't do to others what you wouldn't want others to do to you". This means, if I don't mind something "bad" (as in, considered bad by most people) to happen to me, I should be allowed to do them?

For example, it is documented that a significant portion of molested children turn pedophiles themselves later on, because they grew up to think pedophilia is normal, or even because they enjoyed it. Since they don't mind child molestation when it happens to them, should it be ok for them to molest children?

Another example: some people fantisasize on being raped, for the thrill of feeling powerless in the hands of an unknown brute. Does it means it is ok for these people to rape others too?

My point is that desires can change (as you put it yourself), and that people may even wish things the immense majority of us consider immoral. Desires are not purely universal, and as such, a principle based on universal desires is bound to be empty. Now, if you are talking about near-universal principles, there is a validity to it. Unfortunately, this is majority rule: you deprive the molested child of its freedom of sexual life*; you deprive the rape-fantasizer of its freedom of satisfying his fantasy...

(*it happened to a friend of a friend. His family hosted a messed up little girl who has been repeatedly raped by her family. Despite being underaged, she lusted for sex, and tried to approach this friend's friend into her bed - because of our anti-pedophilia laws, she was frustrated and couldn't exert her freedom of having sex with adults).

Morality enters the picture, where the moral authority to make decisions resides.

Again, who gets to decide who is the moral authority? Who is the person / the people being the moral authority? (I thought you believe you were the obvious choice - I retract my snide comments if you don't believe you are the God of morality) How is the selection of this moral authority performed? How are decisions taken by this moral authority, should there be several people in it?
Unanimity rule? Of majority rule?

You mean everyone must agree with your belief system before you'll want it applied? BS.

Nope. I don't expect everyone to agree with my system, far from it. However, should my system be preferred by the majority of voters one day (we can dream), I expect everybody in my democratic country to agree with the fact this policy is performed, even if they oppose the policy itself. That's called "legitimacy": to accept the wielder of the power, despite opposing him. As much as I hate Chirac, he is a legitimate president, and it wouldn't have been normal for my candidate to win.

Does that mean you think there is another known system out there superior to yours but which you reject anyways? Ri...ight.

No, but I don't believe to be the savior of the world. I don't think Spiffor is the best person that could ever lead the world (although Spifforism is obviously the best system )

Is that crap on the property of the dog owner? If so, too bad, look where you're walking. If it's on someone else's property, even public property, then the owners of that property get to decide if the dog can poop there.

Let's say it's on the streets, a public property. How does the public property decides on the issue? By majority rule?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by GePap


NO it does not.

Government is never created unanimously-one group with the ability to exert power enforces it on everyone else. The consitution of the US was not passed unanimously-once it was passed, it became the law.

The mayority, simply by being the mayority, can exert its power over anyone else. Is this right? The question is irrelevant, since governing is not about morality, but about stability and creating a set of rules and boundary-taming chaos. So whether it is an oligarchy, tyranny or democracy, whomever has the power enforces and creates the government. And we move on from there.

I'm talking about legitimacy here. Of course anyone can go up to me and force me to do anything if he's stronger. The question: when and why is it that we will obey even when we disagree?

There is no need to discuss the prudence behind respecting those who are powerful. It's self-evident.

[Berzerker]

Spiffor -

Yes, and there are on a voluntary basis. I know plenty of people who'll want to keep getting protected by the police, but will avoid paying a dime for it if possible. Should they be on their own when mugged, then? Or does it mean the poor (who can't pay police fees) should be not protected by the police, and be open to robbing and theft, thus impeding on their freedom not to be stolen, or not to be hit?

Why can't the poor afford police protection? They could afford alot more if y'all weren't taxing them in the name of helping them. And it would be up to those who do pay for the police to decide which free riders should be allowed to free ride. But if you want to debate Floyd's views, PM him... He's better qualified than me...

Huh? I was only opposing your claim that nobody enjoys seeing his money go to the State. Since your system seems to require a unanimity of desires, I just showed you my desires aren't the same as yours.

I never said there aren't people who don't enjoy seeing their money go the state, but you said the application of your beliefs required unanimity when in fact you don't require this.

Why should you care about the majority? If one person disagrees, then doing something that he disagrees with is impeding on his freedom.

You didn't answer my question, and I only care about what the majority wants when the majority has the moral authority to decide, i.e., when property is "communal" and preserving our freedom.

Again, there is nothing wrong in believing your system is superior to the others. There is something really laughable, however, in your belief that you Berzerker (not liberarianism, I am talking about yourself) is the one who is the most fit to decide what is perfectly moral or not. I'm glad to hear God is on this board

You think the system you believe in is the best and I think mine is the best, and I didn't invent the Golden Rule which is the basis for my system, Jesus did, and to many, he is God.

Not my morality. You are the only one talking about morality.

Shall I quote you? Here is what you said when I asked where you got your morality:

I find it infinitely better to have a system based on the beliefs of most people

And when I asked if you'd prefer morality via the majority you said "definitely".

So you're backtracking again, now you base your morality on your own belief system, not the majority. But you criticise me for thinking my views of morality are superior to yours and the majority when you think your own are superior to mine and the majority. Are you going to say your morality comes from what the majority thinks again?

My political system is based on democracy. Yes, that little thing that is about making political decisions wherever common action is called for. This is what this thread is about : democracy as a tool of political action.
This issue has been avoided by your posts altogether until this:

I'm avoiding your point? Calling the kettle black once again I see, but the kettle isn't black this time.

Finally I get the answer to the question that is of interest in this thread

I responded to your question before that, and this thread is about the nature of democracy, not the nature of libertarianism. I've offered my critique of democracy and you want to debate libertarianism.

So, you prefer representative government, over one-person despotism. Cool.

Geez, I said early on that my system is a constitutional republic based on libertarian principles and you think I've been avoiding your question?

Now, how are decisions taken? Are they taken at majority rule, or at unanimity?

Unlike you, I don't need unanimity (or did you flip flop on that?). The decisions the majority can make are limited to communal matters and protecting our freedom.

Say, the majority of the government says your slaver neighbour deserves to be enslaved in turn, but a minority says he should remain free, but fined. What is the final decision?

Being jailed for such a crime is not slavery. I already answered who has the authority to decide crime and punishment.

I would maybe even lend you money for you to buy a platform petrol and live your happy dream somewhere on the sea

Let me know when the check is in the mail, then one day I can start selling you oil. Looks like it still hasn't sunk in, but telling people to love it or leave is hypocritical and ironically it was conservatives who use to tell liberals they can leave if they don't like it.

I can only imagine a renowned cannibal: "Yes your honor. He wanted to be eaten, I swear!"

And if he did want to be eaten, what business is it of yours?

You are either saying the rights vary from person to person, or the rights are universal, and forced upon those who don't like it. For example, since "nobody wants to be killed", should suicide be illegal? After all, the "right to life" (which is one of your natural rights IIUC) is the main reason why thousands of aged people can't enjoy a euthanasia.

Please don't tell me what I think, you have enough difficulty maintaining one position. No one is forcing a right upon you, if you don't want to exercise a right, then don't. And now you're confusing murder with suicide? They aren't the same... Suicide should be legal because the individual committing suicide has the moral authority to decide their fate, the murderer and the majority lacks that authority. So, what happens when your majority rule outlaws suicide? Kinda pointless if the person is successful, but what if they aren't?

I wasn't there, but the court considered there was enough evidence of the man wanting to be eaten link.

Then the court should have concerned itself only with determining if this was the man's wish. But according to that link, the court didn't say there was enough evidence the man wanted to be eaten, that was the testimony of the cannibal. So much for your "some guy wanted to be eaten" claim. Any link to all these people who want to be enslaved?

That's because I believe in democracy as a way to achieve my political aims, and I don't hold democracy for corrupt. I understood you considered your (democratic) country to be morally bankrupt, so I didn't imagine you could hope to change the system from within. If you think you can change the system from within, then go on and continue to live in the US.

Oh great, more advice... Who asked? Seriously, who asked you? Your "pithy" response, essentially, to love it or leave it, is hypocritical and immature and what I'd expect from a right wing redneck.

1. I exaggerated my loathing of your belief only to show you not everyone agrees with you, people can even be strongly against what you propose. Since you belong to a fringe group that is so far not dangerous at all for our stable systems, I am not as emotional as I intended to look.

Gee thanks, I would have never known that there are people who disagree with me if not for your exaggeration. Yes, you're quite emotional, I've noticed how liberals rely alot on emotions, kind of feminine don't you think?

2. There are an infinity of atrocities committed under "rule" at all, whether majority, minority, monopersonal, sepotic etc. rule.

Don't try to stick libertarians with the atrocities committed under majority rule, that is illogical and hardly a defense of majority rule. You can't defend these atrocities so you ignore them with "all systems commit atrocities", but if a system is libertarian, the only "atrocity" is that liberals don't get to throw their weight around while hiding behind the state.

I am defending democracy not like some sort of epitome of what is good and great, but as the best political system that has been devised so far.

Which you think is superior to all the rest, HMM...

You may be surprised, but every modern democracy lays out a set of unchangeable freedoms just like your constitution does (although the freedoms aren't entirely identical).

Where did you get that nonsense? People had the freedom to ingest alcohol prior to the 1920's but where did that freedom go for ~13 years? People had the freedom to smoke pot for ~150 years but where did that freedom go? And even freedoms specifically mentioned in the Constitution are under attack by the majority, just ask Rastafarians. Yeah, freedoms are unchanging under majority rule.

But the question I continue to ask is who decided these laws. Who decided to protect these freedoms? Who manages the political matters in the limitations that have been drawn in the political system itself?

Is this where you accuse me again of avoiding a question I've already adressed?

This is the question asked in this thread. This thread is not about the merits and flaws of a libertarian morality, it is about the political process: how to take decisions that, in their nature, will affect other people? Who takes these decisions?

Many questions have been asked in this thread, and you turned it into a thread about the merits of libertarianism.

You were talking about a representative government. Unless it votes at the unanimity rule, this looks frighteningly similar to any modern-day democracy, where a constitution lays out the rights on which the State cannot impede, and where the majority takes decisions in that frame.

What is the effective difference between a democracy and despotism? The number of people dictating what others can or cannot do. Freightening, huh? Representative government is just a means for making decisions, it neither implies democracy or libertarianism - the difference between these are that in the former the majority rules and your platitudes about protecting individual freedom ignores that the same people who rule get to decide what if any freedoms the minority shall be granted. The primary problem with the latter is that no writing on a piece of paper can protect freedoms and voters will simply elect people to do away with those politically incorrect freedoms, i.e., it'll become a democracy.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

I am:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slavery

1. The state of one bound in servitude as the
property of a slaveholder or household.
2.
a. The practice of owning slaves.
b. A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.
3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.
4. A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery.

Looking at the definition, you can choose to be a slave. A slave is simply one bound to someone else.

Are you suggesting if you choose to work for someone you are a slave? I don't see the word "choose" in there, do you? Get off it, Imran, you're heading down the communist path to "capitalism is slavery". Slavery is the forcible taking of one's labor, that is the definition we've been using in this thread, and that is the definition people think of when the word slavery is mentioned (aside from left wingers in a political debate intent on abusing vocabulary).

It depends. Is the 'murder' of some bloodthirsty dictator? That's my point, justification depends on who's in charge and what rules are in place.

No, justification depends on morality regardless of who is in charge or who makes the rules, and it wouldn't be murder to kill a bloodthirsty dictator, that would be self-defense or defense of those whose blood is being spilled by the dictator, i.e., justifiable homicide.

Isn't the Golden Rule "do unto others as you would want them to do unto you"? What if these people want to tax people at a rate which they would want to be taxed at as well?

First, they don't, they call the disparity in treatment "progressive taxation". Second, if I want you taxed based on the proposition I want to be taxed, I'm the one deciding the rate, not the people I want taxed. The Golden Rule, albeit in the perverted form you propose, would mean they get to decide what I am taxed just as I decided what they should be taxed.

If your objection is if they set the rate for others, others should set the rate for them, then that is what democracy is about, isn't it?

But not what the Golden Rule is about (assuming your version of the GR allows for such a thing, it doesn't). A masochist who likes being subjected to pain is not following the GR if they inflict pain on others based on the willingness, even desire, to also be subject to pain. Give Jesus a little credit, he wasn't talking to a bunch of lawyers intent on finding ridiculous loopholes in what he said.

They believe that they should be taxed as well as others and will accept that which those they want to tax will place upon them. That seems to satisfy the Golden Rule and I don't see any way it doesn't.

Only a lawyer wanna be would come up with that. So, if I'm a liberal who wants the "rich" taxed at %70 and they want me taxed at %99, are you suggesting I'd accept that as the GR? Nope... If you want a flat %10 tax on everyone, is your interpretation of the GR being followed if some communist wants you to pay a %100 tax?

Your rape analogy is flawed because the rapist would have to be sibject to rape by another man. It isn't do until others as you would want that person to do unto you. It applies to the entire world.

My analogy had the rapist being raped in turn by a big hairy guy named Bubba. The beautiful woman didn't get to decide to be raped by the rapist, so why would the rapist get to choose who rapes him? That of course ignores what Jesus was talking about, and it sure wasn't an attempt to justify rape.

Yes, and yes. Anyone who knows the law knows that both are true.... except I didn't argue about stealing. Stealing is simply taking something without permission. Murder is unlawful killing, ie, requires a law.

Nonono Imram, that definition of stealing was offered by me when we had that debate, not you. You argued it wasn't stealing because it was legal. As for murder, we disagree, you think law was invented by government and therefore murder was invented by government while I believe that natural law, i.e., morality, preceded government and that the government of the Founders was based on the recognition of this pre-existing natural law, i.e., murder is as old as man. When you accuse me of ignorance wrt the origin of law you are accusing the Founding Fathers of the same thing because they believed in a natural law that was meant to be protected by government, not invented by it. And if the law exists to serve justice (do you agree?) then murder existed before government because justice existed before government. Laws against murder in just societies emanate from earlier concepts of justice and murder was the unjustified and malicious taking of another's life...

UR -

The problems are:

1. Why are Libertarian principles more moral than, say, one that denys property ownership is a right?

Why is that a problem? Do you believe murder is more moral than not murdering? If not, why? Answer that and we can start down the path of logic to show why property is a moral concept. A "right" is a moral or just claim to act that must meet the definition of freedom, owning property meets that definition, stealing it (legally or not) doesn't.

2. Any principles are open to interpretation. When there's interpretation you will need a concensus - thus, we are back to square one.

Once a principle changes due to differing interpretations, it ceases being a principle. That's why principles are held by individuals...

That's easy. Libertarian principles are quite immoral.

Easier said than proven, I've shown why democracy is immoral, you've shown an inability to prove your assertion.